The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Improving Risk Evaluation in FMEA With Cloud Model and Hierarchical TOPSIS Method
Abstract
Failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) is a prospective reliability analysis technique used in a wide range of industries for enhancing the safety and reliability of systems, products, processes, and services. However, the conventional FMEA method has been criticized for inherent drawbacks that limit effectiveness and applications. In this paper, a novel integrated FMEA model based on cloud model theory and hierarchical technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) method is developed to assess and rank the risk of failure modes. First, individual linguistic assessments of failure modes are converted into normal clouds. Then, FMEA team members' weights are calculated based on the subjective weighting information. Finally, the risk priority of failure modes is determined by using the cloud hierarchical TOPSIS. The newly proposed FMEA method combines the advantages of the cloud model in coping with fuzziness and randomness of linguistic assessments and the merits of hierarchical TOPSIS in solving complex decision making problems. Two empirical examples to illustrate the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed FMEA are presented together with a comparison to existing methods.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“different evaluation sets of RPN elements may yield the same RPN result”
From Enhancing Pharma Manufacturing Efficiency: Integrating Lean Six Sigma and Fuzzy FMEA for Waste Reduction (2024) · cites this paper as Liu et al., 2019
In the citing paper
“only the three RPN elements are considered”
From Enhancing Pharma Manufacturing Efficiency: Integrating Lean Six Sigma and Fuzzy FMEA for Waste Reduction (2024) · cites this paper as Liu et al., 2019
In the citing paper
“the relative weights of RPN elements and FMEA experts are not considered”
From Enhancing Pharma Manufacturing Efficiency: Integrating Lean Six Sigma and Fuzzy FMEA for Waste Reduction (2024) · cites this paper as Liu et al., 2019
In the citing paper
“However, the conventional RPN method has been criticized for numerous inherent limitations that weaken its effectiveness.”
From Enhancing Pharma Manufacturing Efficiency: Integrating Lean Six Sigma and Fuzzy FMEA for Waste Reduction (2024) · cites this paper as Liu et al., 2019
In the citing paper
“the arithmetical formula of RPN is too simplistic and is strongly sensitive to assessments' variations, which may not make a precise depiction of a system's risk.”
From Enhancing Pharma Manufacturing Efficiency: Integrating Lean Six Sigma and Fuzzy FMEA for Waste Reduction (2024) · cites this paper as Liu et al., 2019
Citations
Cites
The Concept of a Linguistic Variable and Its Application to Approximate Reasoning—I
Zadeh, L. A. (1975) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/0020-0255(75)90036-5 · Cited by 12,187
The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning-III
Zadeh, L. A. (1975) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/0020-0255(75)90017-1 · Cited by 12,139
A 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for computing with words
Martinez, L., & Herrera, F. (2000) · IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems · doi:10.1109/91.890332 · Cited by 2,662
Multiple Objective Decision Making ― Methods and Applications: A State-of-the-Art Survey
Hwang, C.-L., & Yoon, K. (1979) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,853
Failure Mode and Effect Analysis: FMEA From Theory to Execution
Schneider, H. (1996) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.1996.10484424 · Cited by 1,493
Si, S.-L., You, X.-Y., Liu, H.-C., & Zhang, P. (2018) · Mathematical Problems in Engineering · doi:10.1155/2018/3696457 · Cited by 1,082
Self-citationRisk evaluation approaches in failure mode and effects analysis: A literature review
Liu, H.-C., Liu, L., & Liu, N. (2013) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.08.010 · Cited by 965
Self-citationA new cognitive model: Cloud model
Li, D., Liu, C., & Gan, W. (2009) · International Journal of Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1002/int.20340 · Cited by 757
Fuzzy logic prioritization of failures in a system failure mode, effects and criticality analysis
Bowles, J. B., & Peláez, C. E. (1995) · Reliability Engineering & System Safety · doi:10.1016/0951-8320(95)00068-d · Cited by 687
A Consensus Model to Detect and Manage Noncooperative Behaviors in Large-Scale Group Decision Making
Palomares, I., Martínez, L., & Herrera, F. (2014) · IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems · doi:10.1109/tfuzz.2013.2262769 · Cited by 553
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- 10.1080/08982112.2018. 1448089 · doi:10.1080/08982112.2018
Cited by
An integrated approach for fuzzy failure modes and effects analysis using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy MAIRCA
Boral, S., Howard, I., Chaturvedi, S. K., McKee, K., & Naikan, V. N. A. (2020) · Engineering Failure Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2019.104195 · Cited by 215
Aleksić, A., Tadić, D., Komatina, N., & Nestić, S. (2025) · Mathematics · doi:10.3390/math13132216 · Cited by 11
Kusumawardani, R., & Widyatmoko, A. A. (2024) · Spektrum Industri · doi:10.12928/si.v22i2.199 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Liu, H.-C., Wang, L.-E., Li, Z., & Hu, Y.-P.
- Affiliations
- Tongji University (CN)
- KU Leuven (BE)
- Xidian University (CN)
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems
- Published
- 2019-01
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 84-95
- ISSN
- 1063-6706 (ISSN-L)
- 1941-0034
- OpenAlex
- W2887677662
- Cited by
- 351
- References
- 56
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 62 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 53 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 42
- FWCI
- 28.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (61773250, 71402090, 61374068, 71671125)
- Shanghai Youth Top-Notch Talent
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Multi-Criteria Decision Making
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Advanced Decision-Making Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Risk and Safety Analysis
- Keywords
- failure mode and effects analysis, cloud model, language assessment, decision maker weighting, reliability analysis, fuzzy decision making
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Improving Risk Evaluation in FMEA With Cloud Model and Hierarchical TOPSIS Method. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tfuzz.2018.2861719
- The paper
- Liu, H.-C., Wang, L.-E., Li, Z., & Hu, Y.-P. (2019). Improving Risk Evaluation in FMEA With Cloud Model and Hierarchical TOPSIS Method. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems. https://doi.org/10.1109/tfuzz.2018.2861719
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
